Re: Oppose NSI's redefinition of TLD constituencies

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

I completely agree with Bill Semich, and observe that coupled with the
lilihood of ICANN stalling for a very loing time on opening up the
gTLD name space, we are headed for a very very long period of more and
more limited competition, in exact oppostion to the Green/White papers
and in complete opposition to the required solution of removing the
current artificial Market Structure Failure that created and now
maintains the NSI monopoly.

The solution to our greatest problems is in opening up the name spaces
and not in closing them down.  This includes both gTLD and ccTLD name
spaces.

We need open competition, not closed competition.

To that end, I am shifting my focus to providing open competition to
the ICANN Cartel.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:05:26 EST:
}
}I agree with Patrick's concerns, with additional observations.
}
}The only "constituency" that would gain from throwing out RFC1591 and
}redefining TLDs as being "closed" vs. "open" is Network Solutions Inc.
}(NSI). This same wrong-headed change in the current ccTLD structure was
}proposed in the WIPO RFC last month, and it must be strongly opposed,
}IMHO.
}
}Most of what would currently be defined as "open" ccTLDs (.ch, .uk, .nz,
}.dk, .nu) will probably be forced, for reasons of cost and other
}trademark protection considerations, to become closed. Yet NSI will
}still be able to come into these "closed" ccTLD's national markets and
}sell .com registrations (whether directly, as NSI, or through its new
}registrars), and dominate the local market with the strong .com brand. 
}
}Yet the closed ccTLDs will *not* be able to compete with .com outside
}the "closed" areas on an international basis. That leaves the
}international market free for .com to develop (until new gTLDs are
}added, which could be a while), as well as opening every local ccTLD
}market to NSI to compete with all their International resources and
}millions of marketing dollars on a one-on-one basis. 
}

[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]